Aastha Thakur
Published on: 20 November 2022 at 22:44 IST
The Supreme Court observed that discretion has no place in contractual matters unless it is exclusively mentioned by parties as a part of the contract.
The decision was ruled by the Division Bench of Justices AS Bopanna and PS Narasimha, while dismissing the appeal filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh.
“The rights and duties of the parties to the contract subsist or perish in terms of the contract itself. Even if a party to the contract is a governmental authority, there is no place for discretion vested in the officers administering the contract.”
In an appeal under Section 19 of the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983, the State had petitioned the Supreme Court to reconsider the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court upholding the arbitral tribunal’s award.
The dispute revolved around the clause mentioned in the contract under which if a circumstance beyond the control of the Contractor exists and the Superintending Engineer, in charge of work grants a written order to the effect, a right to seek escalation arises.
The issue was whether when the two conditions provided under clause 3.11 (A) were satisfied, there was no discretion left with the Executive Engineer to impose any further conditions for claiming escalation.
The court observed that the role of the Executive Engineer was only to forward the decision of the Superintending Engineer and enable the Contractor to raise a claim for escalation and has thus acted beyond the scope of the contract.
While observing the ‘discretion’ context here in this case, the court observed:
“A contractual clause which provides for the finality of rates quoted by the Contractor and disallows any future claims for escalation is conclusive and binding on the parties. If the clause debarring future claims permits escalation subject to certain conditions, no claim is admissible if the conditions are not satisfied.”
“However, if the conditions are satisfied, the Contractor will have a right to claim escalation. This is a contractual right. The right originates and subsists by virtue of the contract itself. It is the duty of the Court, while interpreting the contract to decipher the true and correct meaning the parties intended and enforce the rights arising out of the contract. Officers administering the contract will not have any discretion whatsoever to admit or deny escalation after the conditions specified in a contract are satisfied.”
The court concluded with stating its opinion that, “Discretion, a principle within the province of administrative law, has no place in contractual matters unless, of course, the parties have expressly incorporated it as a part of the contract. It is the bounden duty of the court while interpreting the terms of the contracts, to reject the exercise of any such discretion that is entirely outside the realm of the contract.”
With this, the bench set aside the appeal of State of Madhya Pradesh.